Scoping review of traumatic hemothorax: Evidence and knowledge gaps, from diagnosis to chest tube removal.

BACKGROUND

Traumatic hemothorax is a common injury that invites diagnostic and management strategy debates. Evidence-based management has been associated with improved care efficiency. However, the literature abounds with long-debated, re-emerging, and new questions. We aimed to consolidate up-to-date evidence on traumatic hemothoraces, focusing on clinical conundra debated in literature.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review of 21 clinical conundra in traumatic hemothorax diagnosis and management according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Experimental and observational studies evaluating patients (aged ≥18 years) with traumatic hemothoraces were identified through database searches (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library; database inception to Sep, 26 2020) and bibliography reviews of selected articles. Three reviewers screened and selected articles using standardized forms.

RESULTS

We screened 1,440 articles for eligibility, of which 71 met criteria for synthesis. The review comprises 6 sections: (1) Presumptive antibiotics before tube thoracostomy; (2) Initial diagnostic and intervention decisions; (3) Chest tubes; (4) Retained hemothoraces; (5) Delayed hemothoraces; and (6) Chest tube removal). The 21 conundra across these sections follow the format of a question, our recommendation based on interpretation of available evidence, and succinct rationale. Rationale sections detail knowledge gaps and opportunities for future research.

CONCLUSION

Even practices engrained into surgical dogma, such as obtaining chest x-rays after inserting or removing chest tubes and mandating operation for patients who develop chest tube output above a certain threshold, deserve re-evaluation. Some knowledge gaps require rigorous future investigation; sound clinical judgment can likely supplement others.